Throughout the late 2010s, one of the most common arguments made by proponents of sex doll bans is the baseless assertion that they are related to the possession of child sex abuse materials (CSAM), and will point to a handful of news articles and criminal cases where individuals busted for CSAM-possession-related crimes also happened to have a child sex doll.
While there is no question involving these cases, whether or not this occurs on the frequency necessary to assert a relationship between ownership of a doll and CSAM possession (as opposed to creation and distribution) is a matter they simply refuse to own up to, or even entertain.
To put it bluntly: itâs not.
While pedophilic persons may be motivated to own a child sex doll might also be motivated to view CSAM, the overwhelming majority of doll owners, like MAPs, are against CSAM, and plenty of other alternatives exist that do not involve the sexual exploitation and abuse of children. It is the existence and proliferation of these outlets that allows the market and demand for CSAM to take such a massive hit, to see deviation.
Thereâs an underlying psychological factor with regard to the use and engagement with CSAM that a lot of these proponents overlook, and itâs a combination of guilt + innate paternal instinct that are set off when such images are viewed, at least thatâs what Iâve read from surveys/interviews conducted with post-release CSAM offenders.
And even then, if we play devilâs advocate and pretend, for the sake of argument, that consumers of CSAM are actually acquiring child-like sex dolls, is that really enough to demonstrate a relationship between the crime of CSAM possession and the act of simply owning a sex toy, to justify what is a criminal prohibition against an inanimate piece of rubber and plastic?
This is not a scenario I take pleasure in humoring, even if it is unfounded. Organizations like the Child Rescue Coalition (who were caught faking a story about a real childâs likeness being misappropriated by child sex doll makers in China to spur public outrage, thereby exploiting a real child for political gain in the process) will gladly overstate the frequency at which this type of thing occurs, while happily glancing over all of the other instances or cases where a doll served as probable cause for a warrant, only for investigators to not be able to find any actual CSAM.
They will gladly overlook the good work that @prostasia and others, including non-affiliated researchers, have done into researching who owns these types of dolls, including a study which found many contact offenders, as opposed to non-offenders, were found to be against doll use as a whole.
To put it simply, why should owners of dolls, who do not consume CSAM, be deprived of their right to own a doll? Wouldnât it be better to keep the target drawn on those who engage in acts which actually contribute to the sexual exploitation of children?
Theyâre not harming any real children by simply owning a sex toy. Theyâre not going out and engaging in risk-supportive behavior. Theyâre simply using a doll that corresponds to their sexual interests.
Moreover, it seems like a âso there!â talking point, whereby proponents of criminalization will reach for the quickest thing to link it to in order to justify what they know is an irrational and heavy-handed attempt at feel-good criminalization, that will definitely wind up causing more harm than any form of good.
But I digressâŚ
In any case, Iâd love to hear everyoneâs thoughts on the matter. Iâd love for more sex doll owners to come forward and share their side, or any curious bystanders to step in and give their take on the issue. Iâve done my fair share of research, and the overall consensus on child-like sex dolls is 65-70% against criminalization, with the remainder either waivering or in support of criminalization.
